leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Percent movement speed
Recently, there has been a strong disagreement between two editors about the treatment of +% movement speed's inclusion in items' cost analysis sections. I believe it would be better suited for a more open forum discussion, with less edit warring. 22:45, January 23, 2014 (UTC) Discussion I have issues with cost analysis overall. As a whole, I'd say that on a lot/the majority of items, the section is redundant (eg. saying a legendary item is more cost-efficient than it's components), or useless (eg. this passive/active must be worth xxxg for the item to be cost efficient, which is a way of saying that you're paying for an effect). Imo, the data would best be collected in some sort of table, with columns for items, cost, gold value in terms of stats without any other factors, and whether they have additional effects. However, this could very easily show that all advanced/legendary items are cost efficient, in which case the only use is to demonstrate how different legendary items compare in terms of their cost efficiency (gold value/gold cost). However, changing this overall is better discussed in a new thread. To the topic at hand, my opinion is that movement speed is a unique stat incomparable to other champion stats, because the utility of boots/other MS items doesn't come from being able to deal X more damage or take Y less damage, but from being able to win the mobility race. That is to say, when you pay 325g for Boots of Speed, you're not really paying 13g for every 1 point of movement speed. You're paying for a passive ability that helps you to dodge more skillshots, to chase down kills, or to escape a gank, which are more intangible concepts (figuratively speaking, since all champion stats are intangible, movement speed more so) than simply being able to run faster. 22:45, January 23, 2014 (UTC) ClariS' Point on Stats First, I just want to make this very clear. I am not against that the minimum amount of MS gained by 1% MS is . That is just how effective it is at the minimum, and I have never been saying it is wrong. My objection with what Willbachbakal was doing was that he labeled the to be wroth 42.25g because movement speed gain from boots were worth 13g for every 1 MS. Second, gold value is how much a certain stat is wroth (a.k.a, gold value is directly attached with that stat). What makes a stat is stat is all the different formula to determine effectiveness on any given situation. They are not isolated little things that do not interact with anything. Gold value has no direct relation with how effective something is. So, to make illustrating me point easier, I'm going to call the following different name so they all aren't being refereed as MS constantly: :(Base Movement Speed + Flat Movement Bonuses ) × (1 + Percentage Movement Bonuses) = Movement Speed * Apples = Flat Movement Bonus (i.e MS gained from boots or phage) stat * Oranges = Movement Speed Gained by %MS (that stacks additionally) stat * %MS = percentage movement speed stat * Movement Speed (MS) = the end result of the formula that determines your movement speed. This is the effectiveness you get from Apples, Oranges, and slows (but we're ignoring slows as a whole because it has little to do with what we are doing). (Next 1st paragraph is something that had been already agreed a long time ago, but I need it to explain that a difference exist) Apples and Oranges are different. Apples have a few properties, one of them being the defined 13 gold value we tagged to the stat. The 13 gold value is based off of the item cost divided by the stat. Oranges on the other hand do not have a defined gold value since there is no item we can use. We cannot also just say Oranges have a gold value of 13 because of one distinct property that prevents saying Oranges = Apples is that, Apples makes %MS better. Will wants to just focus on one situation that will hold true if you ignore any possible other factors into the situation. The situation will always occur before the property of Apples makes a difference. He is declaring that the first set of Oranges gained through %MS are just Apples because as long as the lacking properties of Oranges do not show, they are Apples. This is where all his problems come from, trying to force the idea that Apples and Oranges are the same. The foundation of his idea is that because Oranges grants the same effectiveness (MS) as Apples in this given situation, regardless how it was obtained or how they may interact in the future (such as Speed Shrines on Twisted Treeline or Dominion, ally speed boost, item speed boost like ), he can freely take properties of Apples and say it is true for Oranges in the given situation. In this case, he wants the 13g that the 1 Apple is worth. One issue with that is, it also implies that Movement Speed is worth 13g*MS, which is something we have never define. It also goes against how we define gold value as Movement Speed is an effectiveness instead of being a stat. Now, this property wouldn't matter if there was only one source that granted %MS in the game that couldn't stack, as this would prevent us from ever experiencing this extra property of Apple (or Orange's lack of that property) in a game that grants us different results. No matter the situation, it would be impossible for us to find the difference, therefore that different property does not exist within that game for the time being, so we could possibly say Apples and Orange are just the same thing as they will only function in the same way, but that is not reality. We can get different results with applies and oranges. But let's say we were to accept something like this, then statements like these would a be true with Will's logic but at the same time conflicting with what we established for gold value. What if someone only cared about the physical damage they do from an auto-attack and had no intentions of attack structures, then in the situation of having 100% critical chance (no ), would that mean that 100% critical chance is worth equal to the amount of AD that person have. Since 100% critical chance is a for sure hit that doubles AD damage, I could say it ranges from 180g to 10800g (50AD - 300AD), but this conflicts with our other gold value of Critical Strike chance, which is set to 50g per 1 Critical Chance. What differs this argument from Will's? Physical damage is just the effectiveness, while AD and critical chance are the two stats. If we just ignore all the different interactions those stat may have and only focus on the effectiveness, is it just right to say Critical Chance is the same as AD, therefor allowing to give AD's property of having the gold value and handing it to Critical Chance? If we continue to use his logic, I could find the value of 42 on-hit magic damage being worth 720g (the same as 20 AD) in the right situation. I can say that 10% life steal granted me 1000 health, therefore my liftsteal has a gold value of 2639g in the right situation. I can also say, Tenacity (a named effect) is worth 21.5g if I just purposely exclude everything that makes Tenacity different from AP. The problem is, they all stem from having to be the same 'effectiveness' which is not what gold value is about. As well, this completely makes the meaning of gold value completely different if we use his logic. The point is, you cannot label one variable as another variable if the only thing in common is that they have same effectiveness in few situations. An Apple is not an Orange, even if they give you one thing you desire equally. It would be like labeling a instant dash a blink just because 95% of the time, you do not hit anything hazardous during mid-flight. But the moment you do hit something, you have to change it because you just proven it wrong. The fact remains is that an instant dash still has the property no matter the situation, so even if you think it just like an blink, it isn't a blink (blinks are unique to dash because they always avoid hazardous things during mid-flight). Main Point: * Common effectiveness does not mean two different stats are the same. It just means they are equally effective. * Gold value is a property of a stat, and if you claim to be a stat, then you must meet the requirements of that stat (as in, you must be able to get all the same results as if you were to grab it from some other source) before you start taking properties attached to the stat. * You can't just pick and choose which properties of a stat you want, and then just ignore what you don't. You completely invalidate what makes that stat different. You might as well just say, "everything is the same until proven wrong". * Will's gold value are fluctuating values that changes based on the effectiveness of a given situations. All the gold value we have do not fluctuate based on the situation. No matter the situation the stat's gold value remains constant because it's not based off of effectiveness. * Lastly, GOLD VALUE IS NOT EFFECTIVENESS. GOLD VALUE is just what the stat cost at the lowest tier. STATS IS NOT EFFECTIVENESS. STATS DETERMINES EFFECTIVENESS. ClariS (talk) 04:00, January 24, 2014 (UTC)